Man Driving a Hummer Not a Dbag? Saves Edmonton Kids!

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Not only will the pontiac driver get off scott free he will get an injury settlement for his trouble. The Hummer was clearly at fault here in insurance eyes.

As stated above insurance does not cover deliberate acts and the hummers damage may not get covered. No company wants this bad press and in my experience I have found that the most effective way for claims to be paid that technically shouldn't is to go to the media. This claim will get paid its already in the media spotlight.

His insurance must go up because of distracted driving, no?

[Locke]

Its unfortunate but yeah, buddy with the Hummer may very well get screwed.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

His insurance must go up because of distracted driving, no?

The paper said he was charged with dangerous driving that might raise his rates during renewal but he will get off on those charges. To be honest i'm not very knowledgeable with that side of insurance.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

His insurance must go up because of distracted driving, no?

It really depends, can they prove that?

A lawyer could walk in and say that they cant prove he was distracted and if this crazy guy in a Hummer hadnt swerved out and smoked him he'd have stopped in time.

If distracted or dangerous driving doesnt stick then the guy in the Hummer can go from 'Hero who saved kids' to 'crazy who swerved in traffic to randomly hit another motorist' in a hurry.

I guess it depends on how it all shakes out. Maybe the guy in the Pontiac will own up to being distracted, take the blame and just be thankful no one was hurt. But it might be cheaper and easier for him to lawyer up and leave Hummer-guy hanging.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

Maybe the guy in the Pontiac will own up to being distracted, take the blame and just be thankful no one was hurt. But it might be cheaper and easier for him to lawyer up and leave Hummer-guy hanging.

then leave on riding his unicorn.....

[Shaggin Wagon]

I think the Hummer driver can make the argument that a collision was unavoidable. As a responsible driver he was just lessening the extent of the damage. If his insurance company agrees they will get either the Pontiac's insurer or the driver to pay for repairs. If they disagree then the hummer driver can sue the Pontiac driver.

Due to the high profile in the Journal witnesses would not be hard to come by.

[Canehdianman]

If I was Pontiac guy, I'd be saying I wasn't distracted at all and sue the pants off the Hummer driver (who has admitted that he did it deliberately).

Hummer guy's insurance is going to try to hammer him, unless the PR forces the insurer to eat the costs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

If I was Pontiac guy, I'd be saying I wasn't distracted at all and sue the pants off the Hummer driver (who has admitted that he did it deliberately).

Hummer guy's insurance is going to try to hammer him, unless the PR forces the insurer to eat the costs.

Except the cell phone records are producable.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Except the cell phone records are producable.

That's true, except cell phone records won't show whether he was using a hands-free or not.

If the story told thus far is true, then I'm sure the records will help the case along.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

That's true, except cell phone records won't show whether he was using a hands-free or not.

If the story told thus far is true, then I'm sure the records will help the case along.

Agreed.

[getbak]

Here's the intersection in question: https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.51994...52.41,,0,14.89

The Hummer was coming out of the mall to turn left and go north. The Pontiac was driving north. The kids were crossing the street with the lights flashing (presumably). The collision would have occurred in the middle of the intersection.

The police estimate the Pontiac's speed at being in excess of 80km/h, which is more than 50 over the speed limit, which would explain the dangerous driving charge. There's no way the Pontiac driver could have stopped before the crosswalk if he was going 80+ in the intersection.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's the intersection in question: https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.51994...52.41,,0,14.89

The Hummer was coming out of the mall to turn left and go north. The Pontiac was driving north. The kids were crossing the street with the lights flashing (presumably). The collision would have occurred in the middle of the intersection.

The police estimate the Pontiac's speed at being in excess of 80km/h, which is more than 50 over the speed limit, which would explain the dangerous driving charge. There's no way the Pontiac driver could have stopped before the crosswalk if he was going 80+ in the intersection.

Does that year of Pontiac have an EDR?

[speede5]

I would suspect they will peg it at 50/50, Hummer guy for getting in the way and Pontiac for being to distracted to avoid. I guess it depends what happens with the cel phone and dangerous driving tickets. Insurance won't be too easy on the hummer driver though, he did put himself in harms way.

Sometimes being the good guy hurts, but at least he can live with himself.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by speede5

I would suspect they will peg it at 50/50, Hummer guy for getting in the way and Pontiac for being to distracted to avoid. I guess it depends what happens with the cel phone and dangerous driving tickets. Insurance won't be too easy on the hummer driver though, he did put himself in harms way.

Sometimes being the good guy hurts, but at least he can live with himself.

Insurance does not consider these factors when determining property damage liability, the only fact they see is that the hummer proceeded when unsafe or might consider this a lane change. Regardless its 100% at fault for the hummer.

Insurance claims are pretty clear cut when it comes to damages Edit: In Alberta

[Rerun]

No good deed goes unpunished

[jar_e]

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/humme...130/story.html

A Good Samaritan who purposely drove his Hummer into another car to save four young pedestrians doesn't need to worry about his insurance going up.

On behalf of Krushlnicki's insurance company, Intact, the Director of Communications, Rosa Nelson, gave Global Edmonton the following statement:

"At Intact Insurance, we believe that insurance is about people, not things. We appreciate that thanks to Darrell's quick response, 4 children were unharmed last week while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk. Because of these actions, Darrell will not be charged with an at-fault accident and we will also waive his deductible."

Troy Bourassa, the Director AMA claims, agrees and says AMA would likely do the same if this were their client.

"It's an interesting scenario from an insurance perspective," he admits. "A lot of people might look at it and say 'well, insurance policies don't cover intentional acts. But my read on this would be the intention of the driver was not to cause damage to his vehicle, it was to prevent a worse accident from occurring."

Krushlnicki says he's just glad he was there at the time, and was able to do something to prevent a tragedy. The man driving the other car, meanwhile, is facing a dangerous driving charge.

Glad to see common sense prevail from the insurance company.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by jar_e

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/humme...130/story.html





Glad to see the desire to avoid bad publicity prevail from the insurance company.

fyp

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

fyp

An insurance company caring about PR? That would be a first

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iginla

I'd really love to hear these stories. I've never heard of an insurance company paying for something they don't have to. Please show some examples.

No, it does not happen. As much as you post snide comments it doesn't change that fact.

"At Intact Insurance, we believe that insurance is about people, not things. We appreciate that thanks to Darrell's quick response, 4 children were unharmed last week while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk. Because of these actions, Darrell will not be charged with an at-fault accident and we will also waive his deductible."


Next?

[Daradon]

This was an amazing story. If his insurance company had any brains they'd treat his claim and policy with a little intelligence and heart and just reap the rewards of the free publicity.

Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

EDIT: Just got to the end of the thread. Good for them. Though I would suspect it does have more to do with them being smart about their business than actually wanting to do the right thing. Who knows, maybe a bit of both, I guess it's easy when the two align.